EVENTS & EQUIPMENT SELECTION WORKING PARTY –15th March on.. The Events & Equipment Selection Working Party (WP) is charged with gathering data to provide an objective comparison between the Equipment options proposed for the 2012 Olympic Competition. The information will be used by the WP to produce one report for each Equipment decision which will compare and contrast the Equipment options. The final Equipment selection will be made at the 2008 ISAF Annual Conference in Madrid.

EQUIPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA – 19th April 2008 OLYMPIC COMPETITION 2012 (a) Terms of reference To note the Committeeʼs terms of reference which include recommending to Council equipment matters relating to the events to be used in 2012 (b) Events To note the events decided by Council in November 2007. (c) Equipment submitted for 2012 To receive a paper regarding the equipment submitted for consideration by the deadline of 15 March 2008. (i) Applications for selection not currently used in the 2008 Olympics (ii) Applications for selection currently used in the 2008 Olympics (d) Event Descriptions To note that the Executive Committee have requested guidance from the Equipment Committee regarding the applicability of the submitted equipment to the event categories determined by Council in November 2007. (e) Working Party Report To note a report from the Events & Equipment Selection Working Party (f) Standard Class Rules As a general issue it was noted that 11 classes applying did not currently have their class rules in the ISAF standard format. Recommendation On a unanimous vote it was agreed to recommend that Council sets a deadline of 1 November 2008 for classes applying for Olympic status to have submitted their class rules in the ISAF standard format. (ISAF Council decision November 2005 – approved Submission 044-05) (g) Review of equipment submitted xvii) Formula One Design Class Rules: In standard format. Other issues: minimum wind speed limit higher than RSX (xviii) RSX Class Rules: In standard format.

EVENTS COMMITTEE AGENDA –9th May 2008 2. 2012 OLYMPIC SAILING COMPETITION – EVENTS (b) Events Definitions To receive a report from the Chairman of the Events & Equipment Selection Working Party and ISAF Events Manager (see Appendix A)

3. 2012 OLYMPIC SAILING COMPETITON - EQUIPMENT (a) Equipment Submissions EQ01-08 to EQ30-08 and EQ32-08 to EQ61-08 To receive the Equipment submissions and make a recommendation to Council on the list of possible Equipment for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. The Events Committee recommends to Council that these submissions form the list of possible Equipment at the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition, see Appendix A.

(c) Voting Procedures To finalise the voting procedure for deciding on the recommendation to Council on the list of Equipment for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. The Events Committee agreed the voting procedure set out in the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition Definitions of Events, Equipment Selection, Event Names paper and recommended it also be adopted by Council.

COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA – 10/11th May 4. 2012 OLYMPIC SAILING COMPETITION - EVENTS To receive a verbal report from the President. Discussion regarding the events for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition is addressed under Council minute 6(f).

6. URGENT SUBMISSIONS (f) Submission M06-08 – Selection of Events Council considered Submission M06-08 from the Executive Committee regarding the selection of events for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. Introducing the item, the President expressed his regret at the divide the debate on the Olympic events has caused within ISAF. Recognizing the level of concerns over the decision, the President advised that the Executive Committee had felt it would be prudent for the ISAF Council to have the opportunity to reaffirm or review its decision taken in November 2007 on the events for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. Therefore, the Executive Committee decided to put forward urgent Submission M06- 08. The President informed Council that he did not want to lose any event from the Olympic Programme but ISAF was requested by the IOC to reduce the Olympic events by one for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. The President expressed his support for the valid Council decision of November 2007 and that as President his role was to support decisions of the ISAF Council. In debate around the table, a significant number of Council members presented their arguments both for and against reviewing the decision from November 2007. Takao Otani, representing Group J, advised that he had a conflict of interest due to his involvement with the Class and that he would appoint an alternate and leave the meeting room. Katsumi Shibanuma was therefore appointed as the alternate for Group J for the discussion and vote on Submission M06-08 only. Council was first invited to affirm their decision on the events for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition which was made in November 2007. In accordance with Article 27, the President reported that the following decisions be taken as a secret ballot. Decision On a secret ballot, Council voted not to affirm their decision of November 2007 on the ten events for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. (17 in favour, 20 against, 1 abstain)

Having not reaffirmed, Council was then invited to consider whether the selected events for the men be changed, which would require a two-thirds majority (26 votes) in favour of those entitled to vote. Decision On a secret ballot, Council voted not to change the selected events for the men at the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. (21 in favour, 17 against, 0 abstain) Council was then invited to consider whether the selected events for the women be changed, which would require a two-thirds majority (26 votes) in favour of those entitled to vote. Decision On a secret ballot, Council voted not to change the selected events for the women at the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. (16 in favour, 21 against, 1 abstain) Therefore, the Council decision taken in November 2007 remains and the events on the Olympic programme for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition are: Menʼs Events 1 Person Windsurfer 2 Person Dinghy (High Performance) 2 Person Dinghy 1 Person Dinghy (Heavy) Keelboat Womenʼs Events 1 Person Dinghy Windsurfer 2 Person Dinghy Keelboat (Match)

7. 2012 OLYMPIC SAILING COMPETITION - EQUIPMENT (a) Council noted the equipment which has been the subject of valid submissions made inaccordance with ISAF Regulation 16.1.2 for selection in November 2008 for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. In line with ISAF Regulation 16.1.1(f)(i), Council noted their obligation to make a list of equipment, which the regulations require shall include all equipment proposed through a valid submission, whether or not there is an event on the Olympic programme suitable for the equipment proposed. Council noted that in respect of equipment which had been submitted by a body other than the Class Association and where the Class Association had subsequently confirmed it did not want to be considered as Olympic equipment, the following equipment had been removed from the equipment list: Flying 15, , .

Decision Council approved the following as the equipment list from which the equipment for the events at the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition will be selected in November 2008: (35 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstain) XX 470 CII Capricorn F18* Formula One Design * J22 J24 Laser SB3 (M) Musto Performance Nacra F18* RS: X * In addition submissions have been received for ʻSport boatʼ, new ISAF Match Racing Design and Match Racing Equipment proposed by the 2012 organizer.

Council agreed to decide the eligibility of equipment at the 2008 ISAF Mid-Year Meeting. (28 in favour, 6 against, 0 abstain)

On a secret ballot, Council approved that “the selection of equipment for dinghy events for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition will not be open to ”. (25 in favour, 8 against, 3 abstain)

(b) To consider the process to be implemented in November 2008 by which the Council will select the equipment for the ten events at the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. Decision Council approved the following voting procedure for use by Council in November 2008 to decide the equipment for the events at the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition: (33 in favour, 2 against,1 abstain) 1. In a ballot where one vote is to be cast and more than one option is available, if an option receives more than 50% of valid votes cast (excluding abstentions), it is elected. Failing this, a run-off ballot is held between the two options with most votes. 2. If Equipment has been chosen for an Event within a Gender Group, it is not eligible to be chosen for another Event within the same Gender Group. Ballot 1: Womenʼs Windsurfing Ballot 2: Menʼs Windsurfing Ballot 3: Womenʼs 1 Person Dinghy Ballot 4: Menʼs 1 Person Dinghy Ballot 5: Menʼs 1 Person Dinghy (heavyweight) Ballot 6: Womenʼs 2 Person Dinghy Ballot 7: Menʼs 2 Person Dinghy Ballot 8: Menʼs 2 Person Dinghy (high performance) Ballot 9: Womenʼs Keelboat Match Ballot 10: Menʼs Keelboat 3. In the event of a tie that is necessary to break: (a) When all options are tied, the President will have the casting vote. (b) In all other cases, there will be a run-off vote between the tied options. 10. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL – EQUIPMENT COMMITTEE (a) Equipment Committee Agenda Item 2 – Olympic Sailing Competition 2012 - Standard Class Rules

Recommendation The Equipment Committee recommends that Council sets a deadline of 1 November 2008 for classes applying for Olympic status to have submitted their class rules in the ISAF standard format. (ISAF Council decision November 2005 – approved Submission 044-05). In discussion, Council noted that the requirement for equipment selected for the Olympic Games to have their class rules in the ISAF Standard Class Rules format is set out in the Olympic Classes contract which all classes put forward as Olympic equipment have already signed. An implementation date by when the Standard Class Rules format must have been adopted prior to the Olympic Sailing Competition was not established and therefore is not included in the Olympic Class Contract. Decision 1. On a proposal to defer the recommendation of the Equipment Committee, Council voted not to defer. (11 in favour, 26 against, 0 abstain) 2. Council unanimously rejected the recommendation of the Equipment Committee. (37 in favour, 0 against, 0 abstain)

What next ?

“I would appreciate it you could return the completed Word file as soon as possible but by Wednesday 30 July at the latest. ISAF also has your original submission from earlier in the year, but it would be helpful if you could complete as much of his form as possible.” All potential suppliers of equipment (Classes) to OG 2012 completed this questionnaire.

Olympic Events & Equipment Selection; Report for the Events Committee Mid-Year Meeting 2008 Page 1 of 5 Last updated: 2-May-08

2012 Olympic Sailing Competition Definitions of Events, Equipment Selection, Event Names The schedule for decisions relating to Events and Equipment for the 2012 Olympic Regatta is: in May 2008 ISAF agrees the options for Equipment to be chosen in November based on Equipment submissions received, and the voting process; in November 2008 ISAF decides the Equipment; in May 2009 ISAF confirms the names of Events for the 2012 Olympic Regatta.

Definitions of Events Events Committee agreed in November 2002 that: Recommendation 8: Definition of “Event” What defines an “Event” should be specified. It should include one of each of the following: a) Gender: men, women, or mixed; b) Type: dinghy, multihull, keel-boat or windsurfer; c) Format: eg fleet racing, match racing or team racing. Only when necessary to avoid two medals being allocated to the same Event, an Event should be further defined by number of crew, or descriptive terms such as “heavyweight” or “high performance”. Other Observation Retaining “Open” as a gender option serves no purpose. Gender options should be Men, Women and (dependent on whether Recommendation 6 is accepted) Mixed.

ISAF decided in November 2007 that the Events at the 2012 Olympic Regatta will be (all fleet racing unless stated otherwise): Windsurfer Men 1 person dinghy Men 1 person dinghy Men (heavyweight) 2 person dinghy Men 2 person dinghy Men (high performance) Keelboat Men Windsurfer Women 1 person dinghy Women 2 person dinghy Women Keelboat Women Match Racing

Is Multihull Equipment Eligible for Dinghy Events? Submissions have been received proposing multihull equipment for the dinghy Events. ISAF has to decide whether multihull equipment is eligible equipment for these Events. It could be argued that on the one hand “dinghy” in the above Event titles has not previously been thought of as including multihull (see list below), but on the other hand the definition of “dinghy” does not limit itself to monohull. The November 2002 recommendation above separately identified “dinghy” and “multihull” No multihull has been proposed for dinghy Events before No multihull was entered into either of the two high-performance dinghy trials The November 2007 vote was seen as “multihull out of the Olympics”.

It is recommended that the Events Committee debates in May 2008 whether or not to consider multihull equipment for dinghy Events in 2012, and votes at the end of that debate on the submission from Oman, EQ31-08: “that the selection of Equipment for Dinghy Events for the 2012 Olympic Regatta be open to both mono- and multi- ”. This issue was considered by the Equipment Committee who recommended to reject Submission EQ31-08 unanimously. It is recommended that this is limited to 2012 only, so ISAF can subsequently decide for future Olympic Events either: that dinghy events are explicitly identified as monohull or multihull; or to eliminate event differentiation on the basis of number of hulls, and always allow multihull and monohull submissions for the same events.

Equipment Submissions Received for 2012 Olympic Regatta The following submissions have been received: (* indicates no submission received from the Class Association. Under Regulation 16.1.1(f)(i) Sec Gen should confirm with Class Assoc that it does not want to be withdrawn from the list, and that under Regulation 16.1.1(f)(ii) it will enter into an Olympic Class Contract by 1st November. Strikethrough indicates that the Class has already indicated it wishes to be withdrawn.) Menʼs Events (see also submissions below where Event not specified) Windsurfer- Formula One Design; RSX (9.5m2 sail) 1 Person Dinghy- Europe; Finn; *International ; Laser; 1 Person Dinghy- (heavyweight) Finn; *Laser; Musto Skiff 2 Person Dinghy- 49er; 470; *Hobie 16; Tornado 2 Person Dinghy(high performance)-*29erXX; 470; 49er; F18: *Capricorn, *Hobie Tiger, NACRA F18; Tornado Keelboat- *Flying 15; *Melges 24; Star Womenʼs Events (see also submissions below where Event not specified) Windsurfer- Formula One Design; RSX (8.5m2 sail) 1 Person Dinghy- Byte CII; Europe; 2 Person Dinghy- 29erXX; 470; *Hobie 16 Keelboat Match Proposed by Olympic Organiser- ISAF Design; J22; J24; J80; SB3M; Sonar; “Sportboat”; Ultimate 20; Yngling No Event Specified 2 person- Hobie Tiger Notes: 1. Whether multihull equipment is included in the analysis of dinghy Event options will be decided by the earlier vote on the submission from Oman. 2. There are other submissions that address choice of Equipment in the event that the decision on Events is amended; these submissions do not introduce any additional Equipment choices. 3. The Secretary General should write to those Class Associations who did not identify which Event(s) they wished to be considered for, asking them to clarify this. 4. Council approved submission 044-05 requiring use of Standard Class Rule format by Olympic classes. Those classes that do not currently use this format should be asked to supply, in advance of the November 2008 conference, their plans for its adoption.

Recommended Voting Process Notes: 1. In a ballot where one vote is to be cast and more than one option is available, if an option receives more than 50% of votes cast, it is elected. Failing this, a run- off ballot is held between the two options with most votes. 2. If Equipment has been chosen for an Event within a Gender Group, it is not eligible to be chosen for another Event within the same Gender Group. Ballot 1: Womenʼs Windsurfing Ballot 2: Menʼs Windsurfing Ballot 3: Womenʼs 1 Person Dinghy Ballot 4: Menʼs 1 Person Dinghy Ballot 5: Menʼs 1 Person Dinghy (heavyweight) Ballot 6: Womenʼs 2 Person Dinghy Ballot 7: Menʼs 2 Person Dinghy Ballot 8: Menʼs 2 Person Dinghy (high performance) Ballot 9: Womenʼs Keelboat Match Ballot 10: Menʼs Keelboat

Guidelines for Selection of Equipment The 2004 guidelines have been updated to reflect Type 1 and Type 2 Events and are attached as Appendix A for review and agreement by Events Committee. In preparation for the decisions in November 2008, it is recommended a Working Party is appointed, comprising Events and Equipment Committee representatives, to evaluate (based on the information supplied by the classes) the Equipment options against these guidelines. An analysis of competitors at the 2004 Olympic Regatta is attached as Appendix B. This will be updated following the 2008 Regatta.

Prepared by Chris Atkins and Alastair Fox April 2008 APPENDIX A: OLYMPIC EQUIPMENT SELECTION GUIDELINES OLYMPIC SELECTION CRITERIA (Regulation 16.1.5(a)) (i) Must allow athletes around the world, male, female and of different size and weight, to participate; (ii) Must achieve the current IOC objective of the minimum level of participation for women; (iii) Must give the best sailors in each country the opportunity to participate in readily accessible equipment; (iv) Must combine both traditional and modern events and classes, to reflect, display and promote competitive sailing; (v) Must meet the IOCʼs criteria for participation in the Olympic programme.

EQUIPMENT SELECTION GUIDELINES FOR ALL EVENTS EQUIPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ALL EVENTS Commonality between Menʼs and Womenʼs Equipment is beneficial when it is also appropriate Suitable for racing in wind strengths from light (5 knots) to strong (25 knots) Not unnecessarily expensive Relatively easily transportable for type of equipment Simple to ensure Equipment is fair and conforms to rules; low Equipment measurement costs at regattas Spectator and media-friendly: all Events should be suitable for TV and newspaper coverage ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT GUIDELINES FOR TYPE 1 EVENTS (windsurfing; 1 person dinghy) Suitable to be supplied equipment Low cost and high global availability, ideally “out-of-the-box” equipment Rewards on-the-water sailing skills and athleticism rather than off-the-water technical development

EVENT SYNOPSES & EQUIPMENT SELECTION GUIDELINES FOR SPECIFIC EVENTS WINDSURFING The most athletic of Events, uses low cost, out of the box Equipment that is accessible to all sailing countries and is suitable for light to average weight athletes. Rewards athleticism and physical fitness Rewards boat control & speed more than tactics Suitable for light to average weight athletes Inexpensive, out-of-thebox Equipment Available and sailed worldwide 1 PERSON DINGHY Uses simple and inexpensive Equipment to highlight on-the-water skills. Equipment should be accessible to all sailing countries and be suitable for average weight athletes. Rewards on-the-water sailing skills and physical fitness Suitable for average weight athletes Inexpensive Equipment Available and sailed worldwide 2 PERSON DINGHY Highlights on-the-water skills and team-work. Equipment should be accessible to most sailing countries and be suitable for a wide range of athlete physiques. Rewards on-the-water sailing skills, team-work and physical fitness Suitable for a range of helm / crew weight and physique combinations Relatively inexpensive Equipment Available and sailed worldwide KEEL-BOAT Promotes and reflects keel-boat racing as it is sailed today. Highlights technical skills as well as on-the-water skills and team-work. Rewards on-the-water sailing skills, tactics and team-work Rewards technical skills Suitable for a range of helm/crew weight and physique combinations, but without encouraging extreme physiques Readily available to keelboat- racing nations

EVENT SYNOPSES & EQUIPMENT SELECTION GUIDELINES FOR 2nd EVENT WITHIN A CATEGORY 2nd MEN’S 1 PERSON and 2 PERSON DINGHY Enable Olympic regatta to reflect and promote 1- and 2-person sailing at its most demanding, and for a wider weight range. Equipment should reflect innovation in racing and / or demand extreme skills, and be accessible to most sailing countries. Rewards on-the-water sailing skills, physical fitness and technical skills Rewards team-work, and suitable for a range of helm/crew weight and physique combinations (2-person only) Innovative: design; technology; format of racing; courses Media appeal Fast and athletic Scope for development ISAF Olympic Decision Process Report to Events Committee, May 2008 ISAF’s financial security, and the ability of MNAs to attract funding, is dependent on sailing’s continued participation in the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games, and linked events during each quadrennium, also provide ISAF with its best opportunity to promote the sport and its heroes to a global audience. This paper examines ISAF’s decision processes regarding Olympic Events and Equipment in the light of this significance.

Comments on the current process 1. ISAF decides Events 5 years before the Olympic Regatta, and Equipment 4 years before. Submissions on both Events and Equipment are made in the normal way. MNAs, Class Associations, and Committee Chairmen can all make submissions. 2. While there is the opportunity for strategic considerations, the current process encourages each of the 10 Event and Equipment decisions to be made on its own merits and independent of any strategic plan. 3. There is no single “recommendation” for sailing at the Olympic Regatta, and no opportunity to debate how well an overall “package” meets ISAF’s goals. In addition there is little attention paid to event (as opposed to racing) format, and how the Olympic Regatta as a whole promotes our sport to public, media and IOC. 4. The process therefore encourages lobbying by “vested interest” groups, such as Class Associations, specialist committees, and MNAs with Olympic prospects in particular Events or Equipment. It is hard to differentiate between “specialists” and “lobbyists” when building awareness of the issues before voting.

Possible opportunities for improvement 1. ISAF last updated its Olympic decision processes in November 2002. This introduced the vote on Events, and more formal timelines for supporting processes. 2. Compared to other sports, ISAF’s processes mean that sailing has more uncertainty over its Olympic Events and Equipment than any other sport. Sailing is believed to be the only sport that reviews individually each of its Events, and the Equipment used, every 4 years. 3. These highly political and tactical decisions tend to dominate ISAF decision making, overwhelming any more strategic initiatives. 4. With other sports, Events typically do not change, and there are far fewer (if any) Equipmentbased world championships. These sports can direct their focus at improving the overall event experience for competitor and spectator. 5. As one of the most equipment-driven Olympic sports, sailing nevertheless finds it very hard to change equipment, despite the evolution of new equipment that is often more widespread and lower cost, and capable of displaying the sport better. 6. Class Associations, and equipment-based world champions, are fundamental to the success of sailing as a participation sport. However the elite element of our sport should be looked at separately. In particular Olympic Events and Equipment choices should be driven by ISAF strategy and supporting regulations (in particular regulation 16.1.5(a)). 7. ISAF should consider revising its Olympic decision processes so that it can decide its strategy for sailing at an elite, Olympic level (as opposed to at a participation sport level), and then make Olympic decisions that support that strategy. 8. It is interesting to note that IOC has recently amended its processes so that the IOC Executive recommends the list of Olympic sports, rather than each sport being subject to a separate vote of the IOC.

Outline structure of possible enhancements to the process 1. Council remains responsible for deciding and reviewing overall ISAF strategy, including Olympic strategy, and for making the final decisions on Olympic Events and Equipment. 2. Events Committee remains responsible for deciding and reviewing ISAF Events strategy, including Olympic and Elite Events strategy. This strategy includes plans for continual improvement of the “event experience”, and is subject to Council’s approval to ensure it is consistent with overall ISAF strategy. 3. Equipment Committee remains responsible for deciding and reviewing ISAF Equipment strategy, including the Olympic and Elite Equipment strategy that supports the Events strategy. This strategy is also subject to Council’s approval. 4. ISAF Executive, in consultation with Events and Equipment Committee Chairmen, appoints an x-person Olympic Commission. 5. The Olympic Commission is responsible for: a. 8 years before the Olympic Regatta, reporting on how successful that year’s Olympic Regatta was in terms of nation participation and media coverage. b. 7 years before, reporting on options for change (both Events and Equipment) and recommending any Event / Equipment / format trials. c. 6 years before, reporting on any new Events that could be included and recommending any that should be dropped. d. 5 years before, recommending the 10 Events. e. 4 years before, recommending Equipment for all Events. 6. Report (a) is delivered to all 4 committees (Executive, Council, Events, Equipment) for their debate and comment. 7. This comment is taken into account in the production of report (b), again delivered to all 4 committees for their comment. Executive and Events and/or Equipment Committees are responsible for agreeing which trials take place. 8. Report (c) is delivered to Executive and Events Committee. As the committee responsible, Events Committee scrutinises and may amend any recommendations of the Commission, and then forwards its decision to Council. Council may only accept or reject Events Committee decision; it may not amend it. If Council rejects Events Committee decision, the issue reverts to the Commission and the process is repeated the following May. 9. Report (d) is delivered to Executive and Events Committee and follows the same process as (c). Events Committee scrutinises and may amend the Commission’s recommendations prior to their submission to Council. Council however may only accept or reject the list of 10 Events. 10. Report (e) is delivered to Executive and Equipment Committee and follows the same process as (c). Equipment Committee scrutinises and may amend the Commission’s recommendations prior to their submission to Council. Council however may only accept or reject the list of Equipment for all Events. 11. The above process is consistent with current regulations, except that Event submissions would be required earlier. However it also offers the option of significant amendment and simplification of the submission process for Olympic decisions. Since Council becomes more responsible for reviewing overall strategy, and less responsible for individual Events and Equipment decisions, any Events and Equipment submissions could be made in the same way that Class rule changes are now made, and their receipt, and the Commission's decisions, reported in appropriate detail to the relevant committees.

Prepared by Bjorn Unger, Cory Sertl, Chris Atkins, April 2008